The Relationship of Christianity to Other Religions

Any discussion of how Christianity relates to other religions must first begin with a clear and concrete articulation of what Christianity is centrally about. Much discussion on religious pluralism assumes or posits a universal notion of what is “central” to religions (a norm to which Christianity conforms) or that the content of Christianity is flexible (that which does not conform to the “center” is shed). For example, Paul Knitter explains that, “Every religion, it would seem, seeks to place its followers in contact with a Reality, or to provide them with an exercise, whereby they can break the bonds of ego-clinging in order to embrace and be part of and so be transformed by that which is other.”[1] John Hick, similarly, would locate this soteriological locus “as an actual change in men and women from natural self-centredness to, in theistic terms, God-centredness, or in more general terms, a new orientation centered in the Ultimate, the Real.”[2] Hick also points to the universality of something akin to the “Golden Rule” amongst the major traditions as indicative of this shared soteriological emphasis.[3] Once this center has been determined, Hick believes it is possible (indeed, necessary) to postulate a Christianity without a trinity of unique persons, a de facto incarnation of God in the flesh, or a substitutionary atonement (of any kind).[4] Perhaps if one is seeking to arrive at a general theory of religion, such abstract and vague generalizing is a necessary starting place. However, to address the relationship of Christianity to the other world religions, one must first begin with an adequate expression of what Christianity is, in its own right, before determining potential areas of coherence and/or incoherence with the other great traditions.
The Biblical text begins (Genesis 1-2) with an account of God creating the world (which is oddly enough, a polemic against the leading, and of course the non-leading, accounts of cosmology and theology in the surrounding cultural milieu). This confession of God as creator finds expression repeatedly throughout the Bible.[5] The fact that Yhwh was recognized as the sole creator of the cosmos, means that at least four other religious options cannot be true: (1) henotheism (confession of Yhwh as creator affirms God’s ontological, not merely practical, superiority over the so-called “gods” of the nations); (2) pantheism (confession of Yhwh as creator affirms that God is ontologically distinct from the creation, having an existence both separate and prior); (3) deism (confession of Yhwh as the creator-God was frequently the basis for Israel’s belief that God would intervene in history, not that God was untouchable beyond it); and (4) Gnosticism (the world is the good creation of the one true God, not the bad creation of a foolish lower demiurge).[6] Chapters 3-11 recount the devastating downward spiral the creation takes directly on account of human decisions and behavior. In the opening chapters of the Bible themes are established which are maintained and serve as foundational throughout the rest of the corpus of Scripture: (1) Yhwh is the one true God; (2) the world is affirmed as the good creation of the creator God; (3) the pristine (though not necessarily perfect) created order is corrupted by human sin; and (4) human action repeatedly and progressively destroys the created order. As for this final point, David Clines aptly summarizes Genesis 1-11 in saying, “Humankind tends to destroy what God has made good. Even when God forgives human sin and mitigates the punishment, sin continues to spread, to the point where the world suffers uncreation. And even when God makes a fresh start, turning his back on uncreation forever, humanity’s tendency to sin immediately becomes manifest.”[7]
In chapter twelve of Genesis, God makes a covenant with Abraham and his descendents. They are to be the people through whom the blessing originally granted in Genesis 1, deconstructed in chapters three through eleven, would be mediated to the entire earth. “Abraham emerges within the structure of Genesis as the answer to the plight of all humankind…Abraham and his progeny inherit the role of Adam and Eve…[they] are to be the means of undoing primeval sin and its consequences.”[8] They will be God’s agents in restoring the corrupted and decaying earth.
Thus the nation of Israel is born. Nearly immediately however, and such becomes a recurrent theme throughout the Old Testament, the covenant people themselves are in peril, either through unelected circumstances (the barrenness of the matriarchs, oppression in Egypt, captivity in Babylon, etc.), interpersonal strife, or national sin which elicits God’s judgment. However, the calling to be the mediator of God’s blessing to the earth and the means by which the problem of sin would be dealt with was not rescinded. Even in the midst of the Babylonian captivity, the Book of the Prophet Isaiah calls Israel, “my servant [who] will bring forth justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1), the “light to the nations” (Isa. 42:6), those by whom Yhwh’s “salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6), and those who are appointed to “restore the earth” (49:8).
To the prophets, who stood in the theological, emotional, intellectual and pastoral chasm between the unabashed calling of Israel to be God’s means of dealing with the sin of the world and the ever-precarious status of that same covenant people, it became understood that Israel’s calling would only be fulfilled by a dramatic intervention of God in history. Indeed, it would be history’s climactic moment, in which God would “bare his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa. 52:9). This redemptive, restorative justice-effecting salvation would be a decisive act of God, through his people within the world, yet very much so from beyond the world. Within the Old Testmanent itself (Isa. 25:6-8; Daniel 12) but increasingly so in the intertestimental period, this expectation became understood in terms of resurrection, the post-mortem revivification of bodily life.[9]
It was as these expectations for God’s justice to break in upon the world reached, in many quarters, a feverish pitch, that Jesus, the one hailed Messiah, entered the world scene, announcing the Reign of God. This kingdom was understood by his Jewish followers to be in direct continuity with kingdom expectations flowing from the Jewish prophetic writings about God’s justice and salvation coming to earth.[10] Though this has been the subject of numerous entire monographs, the life, message, ministry and actions of Jesus were meant, by him, to be understood in continuity with these messianic expectations. Of particular note are his actions at the temple (Mt. 21:12ff; Mk 11:15ff.; Lk. 19:45ff.) where he announced that it would be torn down and he would rebuild it, therein declaring himself to be Israel’s (and the world’s) messiah and king; and the Last Supper (Mt. 26:20ff; Mark 14:12ff.; Lk. 22:7ff.), where he interprets his impending death through the lens of the Passover, in which God will work to effect a New Exodus of freedom and liberation in fulfillment of his covenant with Abraham.[11] Jesus’ announcement of the nearness of the Kingdom, in conjunction with these “prophetic parables” indicate his belief that the long awaited time when God would decisively act to deal with the problem of sin and restore the entire creation in God’s salvific justice was happening through him. This great restoration was in fact inaugurated when God raised Jesus bodily from the dead as the firstfruits of the resurrection of the entire creation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20). After his resurrection, he affirms that “all authority in heaven and on earth” had been given to him as the world’s true Lord and that the apostles were to go, in the spirit of Psalm 96 and Isaiah 52, announcing to all nations that God was bringing salvation, righteousness and wholeness near, putting the world to rights, and was simultaneously demanding their allegiance to Jesus as Lord and their submission to his kingdom proclamations (teachings).
The other New Testament writings, of Paul in particular, continue to implement the message and work of Jesus, in continuity with the story of Israel’s history.[12] They herald both the dawning new day of God’s kingdom of salvific justice upon the world,[13] yet at the same time acknowledging the lingering realities of the “present evil age,” including evil (Rom. 8:35-36), sickness (Phil. 2:26-27), suffering (1 Cor. 12:26), death (Rom. 8:10), decay (Rom. 8:20-21), and demonic powers (Eph. 6:12). Though God had decisively acted in and through Jesus, and makes his people agents of restoration, the earth still awaits a future moment of final salvation which will be brought by God to the earth (Rom. 8:18ff; 1 Cor. 15:23ff; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess. 4:13ff; 2 Thess. 1:6-8; 2:7-8; Rev. 21-22). This salvation, both its present downpayment and future fulfillment, is the possession of those who participate in the death and resurrection of the Messiah (1 Cor. 6:15, 10:16; 12:27; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:3-11; 8:1; 12:4-6; Gal. 2:19f; 5:24; 6:14; Phil 3:8f; Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:20; 3:1-4). Those who have given their allegiance to Jesus as Lord will participate in the full life of the Age to Come, while those who are not “in the Messiah” will perish (1 Cor. 1:18; 6:9ff; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3; Phil. 3:19). [14]
This articulation of Christian faith is, albeit, extremely abbreviated. What it hopefully makes clear is that Biblical Christianity, when expressed in concrete terms, cannot accept the soteriological proposals made by Hick and others. Of note is that the preceding articulation of Christianity did not even mention the common stumbling blocks of Trinity, Incarnation and Substitutionary Atonement, but focused on the Biblical framework in which a historically situated understanding of Christian salvation emerges. Christian salvation is not about a personalistic and moralistic attempt to move from “ego-centeredness” to “reality-centeredness.” Rather, Christianity affirms that existent reality is itself in need of salvation, both the constituent members and the greater whole. Although this salvation will certainly affect the internal orientation of individuals, its paramount feature is that it comes from God to the entire cosmos, for those who are of the faithfulness of Jesus (Rom. 3:26), those who have given believing allegiance to the world’s true Lord, Jesus (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Christianity is thus incompatible with the major world religions, not because of certain distinctive doctrines, but because if its concepts of God, humanity, the earth and its salvation are true, then by nature, it does not allow for the truth claims of other religions in as much as they conflict with its own.
[1] Paul Knitter, “Christian Theology of Liberation and Interfaith Dialogue,” in Christianity and Other Religions, ed. John HIck (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001), 151-2.
[2] John Hick, “The Theological Challenge of Religious Pluralism,” ibid, 164.
[3] ibid.
[4] John Hick, “The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Towards a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul Knitter (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), 30-33.
[5] Genesis 1:1-28, 31; 2:1-25; 5:1, 2; 9:6; Exodus 20:11; 1 Samuel 2:8; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chronicles 16:26; Nehemiah 9:6; Job 9:8, 9; 10:3, 8; 12:7-9; 26:7-13; 28:23-26; 37:16, 18; 38:4-38; Psalm 8:3; 19:1, 4; 24:1, 2; 33:6, 7, 9; 65:6; 74:16, 17; 78:69; 89:11, 12, 47; 90:2; 95:4, 5; 96:5; 102:25; 103:22; 104:2, 3, 5, 6, 24, 30, 31; 119:90, 91; 121:2; 124:8; 136:5-9; 146:5, 6; 148:5, 6; Proverbs 3:19; 8:26-29; 16:4; 22:2; 26:10; 30:4; Ecclesiastes 3:11; 7:29; 11:5; Isaiah 17:7; 37:16; 40:12, 26, 28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:7, 12, 18; 48:13; 51:13, 16; 66:2; Jeremiah 5:22; 10:12, 13, 16; 27:5; 31:35; 32:17; 33:2; 51:15, 16, 19; Amos 4:13; 5:8; 9:6; Jonah 1:9; Zechariah 12:1; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Acts 4:24; 7:50; 14:15; 17:24-26; Romans 1:20; 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:12; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 5:5, 18; Ephesians 3:9; 1 Timothy 6:13; Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:10; 3:4; 11:3; Revelation 4:11; 10:6; 14:7
[6] Nicholas Thomas Wright, New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 249.
[7] David J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentatuech (Sheffield: The University of Sheffield Press, 1978), 76.
[8] Nicholas Thomas Wright, New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 252, 262-3.
[9] Nicholas Thomas Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 146-206.
[10] Nicholas Thomas Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 202ff.
[11] Ibid, 406-428; 554-563.
[12] cf. Romans 1:2; 3:21; 16:26
[13] Acts 2:16-17; 26:16-18; Rom. 3:21; 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:19-20; 10:11; 2 Cor. 5:16-17; 6:1-2; Col. 1:12-14; 4:11; Heb. 1:1-2; 6:4-5; 9:25-26; 12:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-20; 1 John 2:7-8; Rev. 1:9.
[14] E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 453ff., 473.
Related posts
Why Greek Matters (Part 1) – The Joy of Jesus (Matthew 28:9) »
Comments
Comment from sclough
Time: May 15, 2009, 5:01 am
When you articulate the faith this way it’s amazing how clearly the gospel is presented without having to debate through specific doctrines. So often the debate deteriorates into argument over specific doctrines rather than addressing the overall paradigm of Christianity which, when clearly articulated, actually ends up settling the individual doctrinal debates.
Comment from Amanda
Time: May 20, 2009, 12:20 am
Word.
Q’s:
1) What about the expectations of many Jews in the time of Jesus as a political & military figure to rid them of Roman occupation (e.g., Peter objecting to Jesus’s death)? The Jewish concept of salvation at the time of Jesus didn’t seem to encompass the full spiritual aspects of redemption. It might help explain why the Jews still reject Jesus as Messiah today (i.e. He died and didn’t establish His kingdom fully right away). I’m assuming you’ll address this in some form later?
2) Is it right to say that this essay is an articulation of the Christian faith or the Christian worldview? Wouldn’t Christian faith be believing and following Jesus, not merely knowing the correct facts? Perhaps just a semantic pet peeve of mine.
Wait, am I allowed to start debates on this blog?
Comment from Richard
Time: May 23, 2009, 3:40 am
haha Amanda – YOU are welcome to do whatever you want on this blog!
1) If by “spiritual aspects of redemption” you mean “Jesus dying on behalf of our sins so we can be forgiven” – then no, Jews did not have that concept of redemption. If you mean a wholehearted return to the covenant and obedience-filled love for God – then that was certainly part of the (at least some) Jewish concept(s) of God’s eschatological intervention. The Qumran sect, for example, believed that in the last days, much, if not most or all of Israel would repent and adhere to their strict understanding of the covenant and its laws.
As to your question about Jews not believing in Jesus – I think it is because Jesus did not establish the full physical redemption on earth they were expecting (whether it would be narrowly conceived of as political liberation from the Romans or broadly conceived in terms of an Isianic “new heavens and new earth”). Schalom Ben-Chorin (a non-Jesus-believing Jew) put it quite well in saying, “The Jew is profoundly aware of the unredeemed character of the world, and he perceives and recognizes no enclave of redemption in the midst of its unredeemedness. The concept of the redeemed soul in the midst of an unredeemed world is alien to the Jew, profoundly alien, inaccessible from the primal ground of his existence. This is the innermost reason for Israel’s rejection of Jesus, not a merely external, merely national conception of messianism. In Jewish eyes, redemption means redemption from all evil. Evil of body and soul, evil in creation and civilization. So when we say redemption, we mean the whole of redemption. Between creation and redemption we know only one caesura: the revelation of God’s will.”
2) Pet peeves are certainly permitted and I would be the worst one to pooh-pooh them, especially when they come from someone so amicable such as yourself. You would be correct in saying that “faith” in a biblical sense is trusting in, allegiance to and discipleship of Jesus, not just intellectual assent (although it might be difficult to trust and follow with zero intellectual content!). I am content to call my essay the notional content of Christian faith. Worldview I would see more as a sum total of the praxis, story, symbol and questions of a given “culture” (cf. “The transforming vision: shaping a Christian world view” by Brian J Walsh and Richard Middleton).
Haha! This was fun. Hope to see you more around here Amanda!

Comment from Christine
Time: May 2, 2009, 8:09 pm
Wow. Have you even submitted this to your professor yet?